Maryland leaders announce $1.7 million in grant funding for environmental cleanup projects
The funding will support projects ranging from trash removal and stormwater management to increasing green spaces in communities affected by past pollution.
"This is environmental justice in action," Maryland Environment Secretary Serena McIlwain said. "These actions are about fairness, and people, and prosperity."
The grant funding comes from a settlement of a lawsuit filed by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown on behalf of the Department of the Environment, requiring Baltimore City to address unauthorized pollution discharges.
Among the largest grants is $655,363 for the Back River Restoration Committee to design and build a trash wheel on Back River. Other funded initiatives include community cleanups, permeable pavement projects, youth educational programs, and native plantings.
"With these projects, we're creating good-paying jobs, cleaning up trash, improving drainage, planting trees, and establishing new green spaces," Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said. "We aren't just repairing damage; we're building more sustainable neighborhoods."
Other awards include $7,729 for Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Baltimore County to start a water testing and pollution monitoring program on Back River, $154,263 to The 6th Branch, for a program offering interactive workshops to install pollinator gardens at three urban farms, and $222,539 to the Living Classrooms Foundation to install "greening practices" that will improve water in the Lancaster Street canal.
The funding complements Gov. Wes Moore's FY26 budget, which includes over $400 million for wastewater plant upgrades and other Chesapeake Bay-related projects.
Last October, Baltimore City's Department of Public Works said it was
operating at "historic" levels
when it comes to wastewater treatment.
In Tuesday's announcement, officials reported significant improvements at Maryland's two largest wastewater treatment plants, with nitrogen pollution dropping over 60 percent at Back River and 78 percent at Patapsco since 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
16 hours ago
- Black America Web
President Trump Was Reportedly Told Months Ago He's In The Epstein Files Multiple Times, Social Media Reacts
Source: Tasos Katopodis / Getty For the past few weeks, the Trump administration has been desperately trying to divert America's attention away from the controversy surrounding the files of Jeffrey Epstein, which has President Donald Trump even losing the support of some of his dedicated MAGA minions. Well, if Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the other GOP passengers of the roving clown car that has replaced the White House were hoping the Epstein debacle would simmer down anytime soon, they're probably pretty upset now that it has been revealed that Bondi told Trump in May that he was mentioned in the now-infamous files multiple times. According to the Wall Street Journal , Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, dropped the big, beautiful bomb on Trump that his name comes up in Epstein-related files received by the FBI and the Department of Justice — which, if we're being honest, the p-ssy-grabber-in-chief likely already knew. In fact, not only was Trump informed of his name being in the files, but he was reportedly assured no additional documents would be released, because they contained child pornography and information about victims. (They probably didn't tell him, 'Oh, by the way, we also won't release anything else because none of the child porn captured your good side.') Of course, if all we know is that Trump's name and that of other high-profile individuals were mentioned in the files, we don't know that they're included in an incriminating context. Predictably, Trump and his people are clinging to that plausible deniability. From ABC News : The DOJ and FBI stated that their review 'did not uncover evidence' that could lead to further criminal charges. When asked by ABC News on July 15 what Bondi told Trump about the review — 'specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?' Trump responded: 'No, no, she's — she's given us just a very quick briefing,' before making baseless claims that the files were created by some of his political foes. Asked by ABC News following the publication of the Journal article if the president had been told his name is in the files, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung, said, 'The fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.' Ah yes — the latest Obamagate 'scandal.' For those who missed it, last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released what she, Trump and the other cultists believe is some bombshell report, alleging that former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet members manufactured intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election to 'lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.' Trump, of course, has jumped all over this non-revelation, claiming that Obama 'cheated' and 'tried to rig' the 2016 election against him — an election he had already won. Even if Trump had been personally implicated in reports detailing attempts by Russian officials to influence the election, which he wasn't, Gabbard's claims still wouldn't make much sense, considering those reports came to light during Trump's first term, after Obama had been out of office for years, and some of those reports had Secretary of State Marco Rubio's name on them. From The Washington Post: But Gabbard has a problem. How can she discover new evidence that somehow eluded four previous investigations: a 2019 report released by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III; a 2019 Justice Department inspector general report; a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee issued in 2020 by a GOP-controlled Senate; and a 2023 report released by special counsel John Durham, appointed in Trump's first term? All told, the previous reports add up to about 2,500 pages of dense prose, compared with the thin gruel of emails and meeting agendas released by Gabbard. Her report provides no indication that she has studied the earlier investigations. Yet she asserts there was 'direct intent to cover up the truth about what occurred.' If so, one of the co-conspirators would be current Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As a Republican senator from Florida serving on the Intelligence Committee, Rubio signed off on reports that scrutinized the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russia's involvement in the 2016 campaign. One of the reports, Volume 4, devoted almost 160 pages to the development of the intelligence assessment attacked by Gabbard. In examining the ICA, senators held two hearings that included interviews with key players involved in the preparation of the document. 'The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,' the report said. 'On the analytic lines of the ICA, the Committee concludes that all [redacted] analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, although with varying substantiation. The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the ICA.' Rubio embraced Volume 5 of the committee investigation report as well, which said Putin personally ordered the hack. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' the report said. Oh, but don't worry, my MAGA friends — this random attack on the Obama administration is definitely not a transparent attempt to deflect from Epstein. Definitely not. See social media's reaction to the report below. President Trump Was Reportedly Told Months Ago He's In The Epstein Files Multiple Times, Social Media Reacts was originally published on
Chicago Tribune
18 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
WASHINGTON — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held. In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'' One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote. The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects. 'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.' McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration. The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress. The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program. 'The decision is a heartening reminder that courts remain a bastion against government overreach and will step in to protect fundamental rights and liberties when they are blatantly threatened,' Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, said Saturday. The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations. McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.' The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
a day ago
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
WASHINGTON -- A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held. In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'' One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote. The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects. 'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.' McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration. The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress. The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program. The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations. McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.' The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
